This might not deserve its own thread. Ed Brayton has a new post on Exaptation vs Frontloading which is crossposted to PT, and it got me thinking. I've only known about this 'frontloading' nonsense for about a year. The moment I was exposed to the idea, I had the thought I've since had every time it's come up, which is pretty frequent on UD: Is frontloading the dumbest idea ever, or merely extremely stupid?

well, IIRC, the strict concept of frontloading has been around for quite a while, in one form or another; it just shifted mechanisms as the field of genetics was fleshed out.

is it the dumbest idea ever?

naww. not by a longshot; without knowing any better, you could easily be fooled into thinking it makes sense.

example:

the immune system.

without knowing any better, one might conclude that antibodies to all infectious agents that ever existed are front-loaded into a genome.

hence, the idea persists, even into the present, maintained just like the idea of a 6k year earth by people who have somehow decided for themselves that it is more parsimonious with their religious fantasies.

I have only ever seen ONE real frontloading supporter around PT, though, and that was Blast-from-the-past.

if you want to see how frontloaders think, you might try searching on the thread about the evolution of snake venom, and check out his "arguments". They are pretty representative of how front loaders think.

IIRC, Blast did a decent job of expanding on his ideas for how snake venom is a front-loaded trait, and was of course shredded by no less than the author of the paper himself, lenny, myself, and several others piled on.

As Ed points out, mutations would render front-loaded information so worthless so fast I just can't understand how anyone could believe it.

holy crap. you can watch FTK post here on a daily basis, can recall the "creator god" thread from Airhead Dave, and you can't understand THIS one?

I think it's time you troll telic thoughts and invite a front-loader on by.

you'll understand, if be sickened by, their "logic" soon enough.

*evil grin*

btw, IIRC, blast used to explain the "mutation" issue by saying that most of these "genes" were placed in non-encoding regions of the DNA, and so were somehow exempt from mutation. then, as they are needed, they are "called" to "active duty".

It's very hard to get creationists to come by here anymore. We've got a reputation. When I invite them, they react as if I'm inviting them to inspect our new Troy-Bilt Chipper Shredder up close and personal.

It's very hard to get creationists to come by here anymore. We've got a reputation. When I invite them, they react as if I'm inviting them to inspect our new Troy-Bilt Chipper Shredder up close and personal.

Quote

So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don't you know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well, I just don't understand it.

It's very hard to get creationists to come by here anymore. We've got a reputation. When I invite them, they react as if I'm inviting them to inspect our new Troy-Bilt Chipper Shredder up close and personal.

FYI, I think the best death would be the one described by Hunter Thompson, where you put a case of Wild Turkey on the passenger seat of the convertible, turn the radio way up and the lights etc, and start taking those dangerous Kentucky curves way too fast.

(that's a vague memory. Read it years ago. But anyone who's been on those dangerous Kentucky curves knows what I'm talking about)

FYI, I think the best death would be the one described by Hunter Thompson, where you put a case of Wild Turkey on the passenger seat of the convertible, turn the radio way up and the lights etc, and start taking those dangerous Kentucky curves way too fast.

(that's a vague memory. Read it years ago. But anyone who's been on those dangerous Kentucky curves knows what I'm talking about)

As it turned out, Thompson's real death was--how to say it?--less than ideal.

It's very hard to get creationists to come by here anymore. We've got a reputation. When I invite them, they react as if I'm inviting them to inspect our new Troy-Bilt Chipper Shredder up close and personal.

We seem to be getting some cranks in the ID forum. I'm seeing if I can have some fun. Lenny has already told one of them that ID is dead, and Arden is joining in the fun.

Front-loading is also an idea proposed by John Davison in his extraordinary anti-darwinian work Evolutionary Manifesto. Such an idea of front-loading seems to better explain evolution as darwinian mantras of random mutation and natural selection does.

I would say that the Nature itself gives us some examples when the same DNA contains information for different morphological structures - larvae, pupa, butterfly - as is the case of metamorphosis. That these three different morphological structures of the same indivudal evolved gradually via random mutation&natural selection is probably another darwinian fancy.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Front-loading is also an idea proposed by John Davison in his extraordinary anti-darwinian work Evolutionary Manifesto. Such an idea of front-loading seems to better explain evolution as darwinian mantras of random mutation and natural selection does.

I would say that the Nature itself gives us some examples when the same DNA contains information for different morphological structures - larvae, pupa, butterfly - as is the case of metamorphosis. That these three different morphological structures of the same indivudal evolved gradually via random mutation&natural selection is probably another darwinian fancy.

Front-loading is also an idea proposed by John Davison in his extraordinary anti-darwinian work Evolutionary Manifesto. Such an idea of front-loading seems to better explain evolution as darwinian mantras of random mutation and natural selection does.

I would say that the Nature itself gives us some examples when the same DNA contains information for different morphological structures - larvae, pupa, butterfly - as is the case of metamorphosis. That these three different morphological structures of the same indivudal evolved gradually via random mutation&natural selection is probably another darwinian fancy.

that's funny, Martin.

when DaveScott brought up the idea of front-loading as applying to JAD's PEH, JAD specifically said it had nothing to do with it. the resulting argument lead to the first time JAD was banned from UD.

I think you'd best go back and coordinate with your idol again.

Indeed, JAD is very fond of saying that he didn't disagree with the accepted mechanisms of the ToE, but only that evolution stopped long ago.

or haven't you noticed the line he uses as a sig for every post he makes?

I've actually read his PEH (still listed as the crankiest evolutionary concept EVER on crank.net, btw), and I don't recall any mention of front-loading.

care to point it out for us?

strike that.

encouraging any contribution from yourself is like asking for a migrane.

The bottom line is that the evolutionary hypothesis, exaptation, predicts the evidence perfectly; the ID hypothesis is flatly contradicted by it and can only try to explain it away or invent mystical and unknown processes to circumvent the evidence.

Yet I somehow missed information for what these genes in the sea sponge serve for. Are we really witnessing "exaptation"?

Quote

So it seems to be with the genes for synapses.

Aha, so it just only "seems". Yet the readers are expected to blindly believe it.

Quote

The sea sponge did not use them for their current purpose, but that doesnít mean the genes had no use.

So the sea sponge did not use these genes for current purpose. Yet according "selfish gene" conception genes use organisms as their vehicle for their survival. So sometimes the genes use organisms and sometimes an organism uses the genes. It depends what darwinists want to explain. So or so. Darwinism is very flexible and dialectical theory.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin